markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

Here's a video on the topic by Anthony Morganti.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=how+to+upload+from+apple+photos+to+lightroom&docid=608039110798672321&mid=E2D19A3DF8F601836B52E2D19A3DF8F601836B52&view=detail&FORM=VIREHT
Mark

Pinenuts Loc: Genoa, NV

Can you define what you mean by "If you have a clean and well-structured folder system, it will be a breeze." I have been frustrated by every Abobe photo editing software I have tried (and paid for). I presently organize my pictures by creating a folder on my hard drive like this:

Yosemite_2018
Yosemite_2008_jpeg
Yosemite_2008_NEF

Alaska_ 2003
Alasks_2003_jpeg
Alaska_2003_NEF

Would that be a reasonable way to organize my pictures before processing them with Lightroom?

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

Duplicate. sorry

Bob Boner

I enter my raw images by date. If I need more folders in that date I then name those subfolders with the location name. Then I may have several sub-folders, one for each camera used. If I don't have a sub folder for each camera used, then the images from each camera are included in the same folder and the numbers from the individual cameras (or cards) are mixed together. SO I NOW ALWAYS use separate folders for each card (CF or SD). Makes it much easier when I am viewing the images to rate them.

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

There is nothing wrong with your organization.

I have a 4 TB dedicated internal sata drive for images. I organize my images in Window File Explorer in two distinct catalogs: Pictures/year/venue/sub folders...(I did not use the Library folder, My Pictures) and Photos 1 - 14 - 2016/Category/subfolder, ...: My categories include - Family, Scenes, Wildlife, Vacations, Performances ...

I then created two catalogs in LR (Pictures and Photos 1 - 14 - 2016 and imported the entire main folder. At my discretion, I can open either catalog. I do not use LR for organization of my photos. I import new images into my two main catalogs using Win Explorer, then from time to time, import the entire main folder into LR. It works, but it is my own system.

Mark

texashill Loc: Texas Hill Country

I chose the non cloud version of Lightroom after discovering that the trial versions of some of the other options didn't work well with my camera; the images had rounded cropped corners, images were difficult to work with. Also, Lightroom has two powerful sliders for pulling data out of the light and dark areas. I suppose that a more knowledgeable user might have accomplished something better but for me I have been happy with my decision.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

I wouldn't say that Lightroom has a huge learning curve. It's the kind of product where you can master the basics fairly quickly, but you'll keep learning new features, tricks and shortcuts for a long time. Where people get frustrated with LR is where they don't understand that 1) photos have to be imported into LR in order for LR to see them; 2) The first item doesn't necessarily mean that you're moving the pictures, only identifying them to the LR database and 3) Any subsequent moves or deletions of photos MUST be done with LR or else LR will lose track of the photos. If these concepts are crystal clear, many LR headaches will be avoided.

By the way, by "Lightroom," I mean either LR 6 that you mention, or LR CC Classic, NOT the product Adobe so confoundly named LR CC. I'd avoid that one as being not ready for prime time. A caution about LR6, though - this is a legacy product that Adobe isn't supporting, and it may not be able to "see" RAW files from newer cameras. For that reason, I'd suggest LR CC Classic, which is available for $10/month, and also includes Photoshop. Don't start with Photoshop, though, it's a very powerful product, but also far more complex than either LR or Luminar.

From what I've read, the learning curve for Luminar is similar to LR's, so, why would you want to go through that twice?

One of the best advantages LR offers is the vast amount of training and documentation available - books, free and fee-based videos, and user forums.

texashill Loc: Texas Hill Country

https://www.youtube.com/user/AnthonyMorganti Anthony Morganti was helpful to me.

jamesl Loc: Pennsylvania

I have and use "Luminar 2018" and I also have and use "ON1 Photo RAW 2018". I like both products but I actually believe the "ON1 Photo RAW 2018" is more versatile than "Luminar 2018". "Affinity Photo" and "PaintShop Pro" are both very good editors too.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

I would say most, if not all, have a free trial. Why not just download the trial versions and see what works best for you? My experiences and preferences are completely different than yours, so my opinion doesn't really mean a whole lot.

wegriffin8642 Loc: Houston, Tx

I agree with Gene's assessment of Lr. I subscribed to their monthly program late last week and admit it is very user friendly once you learn the terminology and find all the options on their pages. I have 2 mentors and they have stressed file management often.

JeffL Loc: New Jersey

Has anybody tried paint.net? Nobody ever mentions it, but it does a lot of post processing functions, especially with plugins. Comments?

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

Jeff,
Paint is the free accessory in Win 10. It is within "Windows Accessories" in your listed programs from Start. It does provide some very elementary editing tools for photos. There is no website for "paint.net"
Mark

JeffL Loc: New Jersey

Hi Mark,
I am aware of the Win10 program. However, there is a program called “paint.net” which is a free photo editor. It’s been around a long time. I am shocked that no UHH has ever mentioned it or even seems aware of it. Check it out here: https://www.getpaint.net/index.html. I’ve used it for a few years and just added a couple of plugins for more options.

Jeff

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

Jeff,
I apologize. I'm wrong. When I typed Paint.net in Cortana, it opened , Win 10 "Paint". I learned something today!
Thanks.
Mark